THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
IN ITS
RELATION TO GOD AND THE UNIVERSE.
By the
REV. THOMAS W. JENKYN, D.
D. Sections 1 thru Section 4 ON THE ATONEMENT IN ITS RELATION TO
THE PURPOSES OF GOD. A WRITER upon the decrees of God is generally regarded as
one "who meddleth with his Maker;" and his inquiries,
however cautiously conducted, are hushed with the aphorism,
"secret things belong unto the Lord, things revealed belong
to us and to our children forever." The citers of this text
suppose that the divine purposes and decrees are among "the
secret things," and not among "the things revealed," and
that therefore, they do not belong "to us and our
children." Is it true that the divine purposes are not among the
things revealed?" If they are not, an inquiry into them is
an impertinent intrusion upon the arcana of the Godhead. But
if they can be proved to be among the "things revealed,"
they "belong to us and to our children," as moral means. It is indisputably "revealed," that there are such things
as divine purposes and decrees. In numerous instances it has
been revealed what these purposes are. Even if the purposes
themselves are not in the list of moral means, the
revelation of their existence is undoubtedly so. In the
pages of Scripture the announcement or revelation of these
purposes is always connected with their influence on
practical religion. That the practical tendency of such a
development of the divine decrees is beneficial, may be
illustrated by the following case:--A general haranguing his
army just before a battle, gives them a solemn assurance,
that it is decreed for them to have the victory. This
announcement, so far from lulling them to indolence and
inactivity, acts upon them as a moral inducement to put
forth the most determined and vigorous exertion of their
agency. If a coward abuse this announcement, to slink from
effort; if the enemy abuse it, to charge it with
presumption; such an abuse would not, in real life, be
regarded as a fair argument against its practical influence.
The actual tendency of the announcement is to produce manly
effort. This instance illustrates the holy tendency of the
scriptural exhibitions of the divine decrees, as a moral
inducement to persuade men to obedience, and to perseverance
in grace. THE ATONEMENT THE CENTRE OF THE DIVINE
PURPOSES. The Holy Scriptures represent the atonement of Christ as
the centre of all the arrangements, counsels, and purposes
of God. The system of the universe contemplated by the
eternal mind, was a system intellectual and accountable; a
system susceptible of the intrusion of sin; a system,
nevertheless, not to be given up to the ravages of evil, but
to be restored and repaired; and, consequently, a system to
be altogether conveyed over to the hands of a Mediator, who
should, by a compensative administration, establish eternal
order and holiness. The moral system of the universe could not, after the
intrusion of sin, answer the end of its creation, without
being restored or repaired. This restoration, therefore,
forms one of its characteristics, and seems as essential to
it, as its intellectual and accountable elements. No way of
restoring or repairing it has been revealed, except that by
a Mediator. As its restoration alone secures the end of its
creation, and as this could only be accomplished by a
Mediator, mediation is essential to the system. The whole
arrangement forms one mediatorial constitution. The system
of the universe, then, was not even contemplated,
irrespective of a Mediator. The principles of mediation
pervade the whole of it, entering into its creation and
sustenance, government and restoration, and into its eternal
deliverance and glorification. The entire arrangement of all the affairs of the universe
is to be regarded as one grand mediatorial system, the
ground and foundation of which is the atonement of the Son
of God. By saying that mediation is essential to the system,
I mean that it is on account of the atonement, as the ground
of a compensative administration, that God carries on the
affairs of his government, The whole of the manifold wisdom
of God, exercised in the universe, is regulated entirely,
"according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Jesus
Christ our Lord," Eph. iii. 9, 10, 11. To ask what would have become of the moral universe, had
no atonement been appointed, is just as rational as to ask,
what would have become of the material universe, had the
principle of gravitation not been appointed. All the
proceedings in the moral universe take for granted a
mediatorial constitution, just as those in the physical
creation suppose gravitation. In the Scriptures the Lord Jesus Christ is often
represented as "the ELECT," "the CHOSEN of God," "the only
begotten, the FIRST-BORN of many brethren." The people of
God are represented, as "chosen in him," and for his sake.
The whole universe is described as under his sway; for he,
as "the head of all principalities and powers, ascended far
above all heavens, that he might fill all things." It is one of the most prominent articles in the doctrines
of the apostle Paul, that the atonement of Christ is the
foundation of all the divine counsels, etc., that the whole
system of the moral universe is one entire mediatorial
constitution. "We know that all things [the
universe] work together for good to them that love God,
to them who are the called according to his purpose. For,
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of his Son, that HE might be the
FIRST-BORN among many brethren. Blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with
all spiritual blessings in heavenly places IN Christ;
according as he hath chosen us IN Him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him, in love; having predestinated us unto the
adoption of children BY JESUS CHRIST to himself according to
the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of
his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted IN THE BELOVED.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace,
wherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and
prudence, having made known to us the mystery of his will,
according to his good pleasure which he hath PURPOSED in
himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of time,
HE MIGHT GATHER TOGETHER IN ONE ALL THINGS IN CHRIST, both
which are in heaven and which are on earth, even IN HIM.
Whom he hath set at his own right hand in the heavenly
places, far above ALL principality and power, and might,
and, dominion and every name that is named, not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put ALL
THINGS [the universe] under his feet, and gave him
to be the Head over ALL THINGS to the church, which is his
body, the fullness of him that FILLETH ALL IN ALL," ROM.
viii. 28, 29. Eph. i. 3-10. 20-23. These beautiful passages exhibit the mediation of Christ
as the centre of all the counsels, and all the works of
God--the SUN around which all the divine purposes, and all
the divine operations, move. The apostle John likewise represents all the divine
purposes as being administered, in the name, and by the
authority, of Jesus Christ. In the fifth chapter of the
Apocalypse, the divine purposes and counsels concerning the
universe, are considered as a book sealed with seven seals,
the contents of which were to be developed and administered,
by one in the midst of the throne who was a lamb as it had
been slain. The giving of the book to the Lamb, represents
the committing of the whole of the divine measures and
counsels to the Son of God, The Lamb who takes the book is
in the midst of the throne, in the very source and centre of
all authority and favor in the universe. In that centre of
the universe he is "a Lamb as it had been slain," a Lamb of
atonement, the centre of the administration of all moral
measures, to which all the plans, and all the decrees, and
all the works, and all the ways of God have constant
reference. THE ATONEMENT AN EXPRESSION OF THE
DIVINE COUNSELS. The atonement is, itself, one of the counsels of God, and
should be considered as a specimen of all his counsels; an
index to their course, and a sample of their character. I. The atonement is a public expression of the
benevolence of the divine decrees. In the atonement of his Son, the eternal and blessed God
unbosoms his purposes, and says, "Fury is not in me;" "I
know the thoughts which I have thought concerning you,
thoughts of peace and not of evil." Nothing can be so
revolting to humanity, and so repugnant to a heavenly mind,
as an hypothesis that supposes the great God, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, brooding from eternity over a scheme or
counsel of evil against the creature. The counsel of God ordered in all things and sure, is a
counsel of peace, and not of evil. The evil is not in the
counsel; "For God, willing more abundantly to show unto the
heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel,
confirmed it by an oath, that in two things by which it is
impossible for God to lie, we might have strong
consolation." Where, then, do men find despair? Where do
they find perdition? Certainly not in the counsel of God;
for in this there is nothing but "strong consolation." God has no counsel against the salvation of any sinner.
Let some one point out to us where such a hostile counsel is
revealed. Let some sinner be mentioned who has perished in
consequence of such a counsel. The whole counsel of God is
for good, and for good only. It says, "Let the wicked
forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and
let him turn unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him;
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Is it
possible that God may have any secret counsel opposed to
this public declaration? If it be secret how did
Supralapsarians come to know it? He has no decree that
operates against his promises. He has no purpose, that
contradicts his oath. I believe not. He cannot deny
himself. If nothing else will prove that the decrees of God are
not thoughts of evil, let the condescension of
Bethlehem--let the death of Calvary, prove it: believe it
for the very work's sake. The Son of God was delivered to
death "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God."
And how did this counsel run? Take a specimen. "God so loved
the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have
everlasting life." Does the cross, then, express any
thoughts of evil against the sinner? No; but it bears the
inscription written with the blood of atonement, and
addressed to men of all languages, "Him that cometh unto me,
I will in no wise cast out." As the atonement itself is a measure of pure benevolence,
it is, as such, a specimen of all the counsels of God. Hear
what the author of the atonement says: "This is the
condemnation,"--not that there is a settled degree of
reprobation gone forth, against any number of men,--but,
"that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness
rather than light." Hence, it is charged against the Pharisees as a heinous
crime, that they "rejected the counsel of God against
themselves," to their own ruin. This charge alleges that
everything in the counsel itself is for the benefit of the
sinner, and nothing against him; that all the benefits of
the counsel are freely and sincerely offered to the
acceptance of the sinner; that the sinner voluntarily, but
most perversely, rejects these benefits of the counsel; and
that such a rejection is a crime, and makes the sinner and
the sinner alone, the author of his own ruin. The purpose,
design, and tendency of the atonement, is, "NOT to condemn
the world, but that the world through him might be saved."
The supposition that there are, notwithstanding, some
decrees secretly opposed to this avowed design of the
atonement, is unreasonable, improbable, and impossible. II. The atonement may be considered, further, as an
expression of the non-interference of the divine decrees
with the liberty of moral agents. The whole work of the atonement, from the incarnation of
Christ to his ascension, was accomplished without
interfering with the free agency of any one being. Its
operation in moral government, and its application to man by
the Holy Spirit, are carried on without infringing at all on
human liberty. And as is the character of the atonement
itself, so is the character of the counsel concerning
it. No advocate of liberty, can wish for a freer range for
the freedom of the will, than the Jews and the Gentiles had,
when the Son of God was engaged in the work of making an
atonement; and yet in the whole transaction the counsel of
God stands, and free agency is perfectly unconstrained. "For
of a truth, against the holy child Jesus, whom God had
anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles
and the people of Israel, were gathered together for to do
whatsoever the hand and the counsel of God had determined
before to be done." We may puzzle ourselves, and puzzle
others, by asking with Nicodemus, "How can these things be?"
But it should be considered, that the demonstration of such
problems is not given to scholars on our form, that our work
is to search the Scriptures "whether these things are so,"
and to act accordingly. In these Scriptures we discover,
that the divine decrees did not interfere with the freedom
of any person concerned in the murdering and crucifying of
Christ. This non-interference with free agency, the atonement
maintains in all its operation and influence in moral
government. The gospel exhibits the atonement, as an open
medium of reconciliation with God, and as a motive to deter
from sin, and persuade to holy obedience. The benefits of
the atonement are freely offered to the unconstrained
acceptance of every one who hears the gospel. Any acceptance
of it that is not free and unconstrained, is not pleasing to
God, nor is it available to the benefit of man. In accepting
it, and choosing it, as a motive of holiness, and as a
medium of pardon, the believer is free and unconstrained and
in rejecting it as the means of salvation, every sinner acts
according to his own free and uninfluenced choice. When the Holy Spirit opens the heart to attend to the
claims and influence of the atonement, there is no more
violence offered to the freedom of the will, than there was
in Christ showing his wounds to Thomas to make him "not
faithless but believing." The atonement effects no change
whatever in the laws of liberty. It does not constrain God
to exercise mercy; and it does not constrain the sinner to
accept of pardon. As, therefore, this "counsel of God" can
be administered without infringing on free agency, it is a
sample and a proof that ALL the purposes of God may be so
too. All the works of God are the products of his mind and
counsel, and are, therefore, all of the same nature and
tendency. The works of God do not contradict his thoughts,
nor do his thoughts contradict his works. His works are
always the open and sincere expression of his thoughts and
purposes, and as the atonement is one of his chief works, it
is an expression and a specimen of the benevolence of all
his decrees, and of their non-interference with the laws of
free agency. THE ATONEMENT A VINDICATION OF THE
DIVINE PURPOSES. In the history of moral dispensations, the divine
purposes have been liable to many charges, as having been
accessory to the intrusion of sin, as throwing an air of
insincerity on divine warnings and invitations, as being
arbitrary in determining to communicate gracious influences,
and as occasioning the eternal perdition of unbelievers. As
God works all things in his government according to the
counsel of his own will, it was necessary, for the ends of
government, that the character of the divine counsels should
not only be explained and illustrated, but be clearly and
publicly vindicated, by the atonement. First. The atonement of Christ vindicates the divine
decrees from having been accessory to the intrusion of
sin. Jesus Christ is not a minister of sin, and his atonement
is not an apology for sin. There is nothing in the measure
of atonement that is designed or calculated to favor sin, or
to extenuate its enormity, but everything to oppose, to
destroy, and to prevent it. The atonement is a demonstration
to the universe, that there never was, in the eternal mind,
a decree accessory to evil; for everything in its provisions
is purposed, and designed, and fitted to suppress all sin.
God, indeed, foresaw that evil would intrude into the
universe, and he made provisions against its entrance; but
his mind and counsels are quite guiltless of it. To
vindicate his decrees from the suspicion of any share of
evil, he has, at an infinite expense, shown how repugnant
sin was to their order and character, by publicly condemning
it in the person of his own Son. God does nothing but good. To purpose not to do good is
to purpose to do NO-thing, and a purpose to do No-thing is
surely NO purpose, No decree; that is, the absence or the
reverse of good is not the product of design, evil is not
the result of arrangement. PALEY has observed that in the
bodily frame of man there is nothing intended or designed to
produce pain. Whatever, therefore, of pain may be in the
human frame, it is not the result of design or purpose. That
which is true of the frame of one man, is true of the frame
of every man in the world; yes, it is true of the frame of
the entire universe. In the whole vast, multifarious, and
boundless system, there is not one principle, not one
movement arranged, designed, and intended to produce
evil. Suppose an objector, viewing an emaciated man "in sore
pain upon his bed," to say, "This pain is not accidental,
there must be some cause for it, there must be something in
the formation of man, contrived, purposed, and secretly
introduced to give pain, which argues the want of
benevolence in the author of his frame." We would reply,
"No, you are wrong. If you knew well the constitution of
man, you would know that there is nothing introduced that is
calculated to give pain; there is no sinew, nor muscle,
neither gland nor duct, that is calculated and designed to
produce disease. But if your knowledge of the frame of man
does not convince you of the benevolence of its author, look
at the provision of medicinal virtue which he has
plentifully stored in vegetables and in minerals, and in the
air and the water around us, and see that all his designs
and purposes are--to produce health, and to prevent
disease." If the same objector, viewing the shattered moral
constitution of the universe, were to say, "This evil was
foreseen, and might have been prevented; its existence,
therefore, argues the want of benevolence either in the
nature, or in the purposes, of its author." We would again
reply, "No, you are wrong. If you knew thoroughly the
constitution of the universe, you would know that there is
in it no law, no motive, no power, no influence, that is
calculated or intended to produce evil. But if your
knowledge of the arranged constitution of the universe does
not convince you of the benevolence--of its maker, and
justify to you the ways of God to man, examine the splendid
compensative provision which he has made, in the atonement
of HIS OWN SON, a measure of pure benevolence and unmixed
good." If we are not to judge of an agent's design and purposes
from the adaptation of his means, the fitness of his
actions, and the tendency of his measures, then, there must
be an end to all reasoning, for the agent must be either
without contrivance, or without sincerity. In the measures
of a wise agent, the benevolent tendency of the means is a
proof, and a vindication, of the benevolent nature and
bearings of his purposes. The atonement is a measure of pure
benevolence "set forth" as a vindication of the pure
benevolence of the purposes and decrees of God, and of their
being guiltless of the origin and ravages of sin. This reasoning is not pretended to be sufficient to
account for the origin of sin, but it is sufficient to show
that sin is not the result of Divine Decrees. Secondly. The atonement vindicates the divine purposes
from the suspicion of throwing an air of insincerity on the
invitations of the gospel. The invitations of the gospel are open, universal, and
obligatory; but men constantly abuse them, or neglect them,
by indefinable guesses at the nature and the order of the
divine decrees. Their sophism generally runs in this way:
God has predetermined to whom he will impart gracious
influences to bring them to accept his offers: and since he
has not predestinated to do this for all he cannot sincerely
will that all should comply with his invitations. This sophism is grounded upon two suppositions, which are
unsound and shallow. It supposes that a disposition to obey,
is indispensably necessary to the accountableness of a
sinner, and essential to his power of obeying. As if a
governor could not justly make any laws which some of the
subjects had not the disposition to obey: or, as if no king
could make any laws against smuggling, but such as smugglers
felt disposed to obey. This view of the case is subversive
of all government, as it insinuates that it would be a
sufficient apology for disobeying the law or command, that
the smuggler said, he could not obey it, for he felt no
inclination or disposition to submit to it, and therefore,
it is unjust to make him accountable for it. The above
sophism has another glaring error. It supposes that the rule
of the subject's homage is not the published enactment of
the government, but his individual apprehension of what
might be the private mind, and secret purposes, of the king,
which, by the bye, is supposed to be at variance with his
published and avowed declaration. This stultifies all
legislation and all accountableness. Whatever purposes and
counsels are unrevealed, they are not among the moral means
to be employed by us and as far as they are unpublished,
they are never the rule of human conduct, and consequently
will never be the rule of final judgment. The decrees
published to us in the gospel are not the rule of conduct to
the heathen, until they are published to them; but the
moment they are published, a great and eternal change is
made, both in the measure of their accountableness, and in
the rule of their conduct. We shall not be judged according
to what WE deem to be the secret mind of God, but according
to what HE has promulgated as his declared Will. In all the concerns of life and business, men never pose
themselves about the decrees of eternity. They never consult
the eternal decrees to know what trade to pursue, in what
town to set up, what physician to call in, what medicine to
take, etc. In all such transactions men reason and calculate
on the general character, aspect, adaptation, bearing, and
tendency of things; and they regard such arrangements as
pretty clearly denoting to them the mind and the purpose of
their Maker and providential Governor. In all their
speculations and transactions, the farmers never make a
supposed unrevealed decree their rule, because "the bow in
the cloud" always vindicates the purposes of God from any
suspicion of hostility to their "seed time and harvest
time." Let us be as wise in our generation; and, in our
spiritual transactions, believe that the atonement of Christ
vindicates all the decrees of God from any aspect opposed to
the published declaration, "Him that cometh I will in no
wise cast out. The purposes or decrees of God are revealed and
published, not in audible sounds, but in the nature,
tendency, and meaning of the things which he expressly
commands, or offers, or prohibits. To suppose any design or
purpose opposite to these is to suppose the most horrible
monstrosity in the universe,--God contradicting himself. It is true that in numerous instances the event is very
different from the design and purpose declared. In a moral
government, during an economy of probation, in which
millions of free agents are at work, such a difference and
such a failure are, as we have seen in a former chapter, to
be expected. This assertion may sound startling, but try to
evade it as you may, you can not avoid the conclusion, that
the moral government of free agents in a state of trial,
must be susceptible of failures. It is a FACT that such
failures have taken place; and to attempt to wrest, or alter
this fact, is to try to change the universe. The will of God is publicly revealed for public ends, and
it is impossible to show what private ends he can have, that
are opposed to his public avowals. The universe is a public
commonwealth. Of this commonwealth God is the public head,
and chief member. In administering its affairs he does
everything in his official capacity and public character, as
the Governor of it. All the measures proposed and executed
in it are for the public good of the whole commonwealth. In
its government every wrong and every sin is treated, not as
a private offence, but as a public injury, to be publicly
noticed, whether in punishment or in pardon. As the public
and official organ of this moral commonwealth, God has
announced his purposes, requirements, prohibitions, offers,
and invitations. These form his PUBLIC WILL: public, not in opposition to
secret, but in opposition to private or unofficial. I call
this public will, as I call the great principle on which
divine moral government is administered, PUBLIC JUSTICE; as
consulting the public good of the commonwealth, as well as
the private interests of individuals. The atonement of Christ is a public vindication of this
public will from any suspicion of insincerity. In the
atonement all the promises, invitations and offers, are yea
and amen in Christ, to the glory of the divine character and
purposes. The nature of God, as the God of truth in real
works and words of verity--the accurate adaptation of the
provision to the case of the sinner--the actual experience
of every applicant at the door of mercy--the perpetuation of
gracious offers and invitations in the world, after so many
forfeitures--the pressing earnestness with which men are
invited and courted to accept them--the aggravated and sorer
punishment which befalls those who refuse them--and, the
worthy name and character of the Mediator, who reveals and
confirms all these by his death; all these are "things in
which it is impossible for God to lie," and which impress,
upon all his proposals and overtures, the image and
superscription of verily undissembling sincerity. To suppose that the atonement is only a semblance of
benevolence and love, put forth to impose on mankind, to
mock the applicant, or to tantalize the inquiring penitent,
is nothing less than "to trample under foot the blood of the
everlasting covenant." In the atonement there is provision
purposely intended for all, and all are sincerely invited to
partake of it freely. The all-sufficiency of the atonement
is the foundation laid for the universal invitations of the
gospel. An all-sufficiency, yet not intended for all who are
invited to partake of it, is such an awful imposture, that I
grudge the very ink, that mentions it in connection with the
gospel of TRUTH." If the atonement does not prove the faithfulness and
sincerity of God, where shall we look for proof? Ought we
not to shudder at the very surmise of God's using a mental
reservation in the atonement of his own Son? and in the
offers and invitations and assurances of his grace? Was the
blessed Saviour himself insincere in his laborious toil, in
his bloody sweat, or in his ignominious death? No, he was
full of grace and truth. If the character of God for
sincerity, and the character of a theological system for
consistency, come in competition, which must give way? In a
well-ordered mind there cannot be a moment's hesitation. Let
us rather renounce our theological systems, or confess our
ignorance of the whole of the case, than suspect for a
moment any mental reservation, insincerity, and
dissimulation, either in the divine invitations, or in the
poses and counsels. In the atonement God has given a public
testimony of his truth and sincerity; and "he that hath
received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is
true. Then let God be true, though all human theologians
were liars." Thirdly. The atonement vindicates the divine purposes
from the charge of capricious arbitrariness, and partiality,
in the operations of sovereign and gracious influences. The Bible asks the question, "Who maketh thee to differ?"
On the answer to the question hang all the controversies in
polemical theology. The Bible itself answers this question.
"Unto you it is given, in the behalf of Christ, to believe
on him." "God worketh in you to will and to do of his good
pleasure." "God giveth the increase." That the difference in
the spiritual conditions of men, and the change of men's
hearts, is produced by divine influences, is asserted by the
whole Scripture, and is recognized in every one's prayers,
though not in every one's creed. It ought not to escape notice, that it is only in the
transaction of saving a sinner, that men dare ask God, "Why
doest thou this?" God has not "seen it good" to give a
detailed account of this matter, or to answer the question,
except, indeed, with a warning voice, "Who art thou, O man,
that repliest against God?" Nevertheless, he has introduced
into his government, the measure of atonement to be an
interpretation of his purposes, and a vindication of his
counsels, against suspicions of unjust specialty or
unreasonable sovereignty. The exercise of a sovereign speciality in the application
of the atonement is indisputable. No hypothesis that admits
the death of Christ to be an atonement, can deny this. There
are in its application three instances of specialty which
are signal, broad, and evident. There is a specialty in its
application to mankind, to the exclusion of fallen angels.
There is a specialty in its application to believers, to the
exclusion of its rejecters. For, the Word of Reconciliation,
perfect and powerful as it is, will "not profit the hearer,"
unless it be "mingled with faith" in the hearer. There is a
third specialty, in the application of its benefits more
largely to some believers than others, in proportion to
their works and labors for Christ. I shall not enter now on
a consideration of these subjects, as it will be more in
place when we come to the chapter on the atonement in its
relation to the work of the Spirit. Here we have three well defined, indisputable, instances
of sovereign specialty in the application of the benefits of
the death of Christ: What shall we do with them? How shall
we evade them? They are not capricious, for they are the
uniform laws observed in the application of the atonement.
Shall we say that they are unjust, and that God has
exercised a prerogative, in dispensing his favors, to which
he has no right? Try it. Did you ever think that for God to
take mercy on man, was really a wrong to the devils? Was the
salvation of Saul of Tarsus an evil in itself, and a wrong
to all the Pharisees? Is conferring gracious honors
bountifully, upon those who have sown bountifully, a wrong
to those who have sown sparingly? Again, I say, here they
are, three prominent, stubborn, immovable, and imperishable
facts of specialty: what will you do with them? Betake
yourself to the feet of Jesus Christ, and there learn to
say, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."
If there be no evil, injury, or wrong in the actual,
practical, and tangible exercise of this specialty, there
can be no evil, injury, or wrong, in purposing and
determining thus to exercise it. It may, perhaps, be surmised by some, that the
determination to apply the atonement with this specialty was
partial and capricious. Let us briefly consider the state of
the case between God and man. God has a claim to the whole
existence and to the entire service of man. Man, by sinning,
revolts from these claims. Though man refuses these claims,
God still maintains and defends them. God, as moral
governor, is not bound to give to a revolting subject a
disposition to own his claims, or else to cease from urging
his claims. The punishment of a revolter is due to the
governor, for the ends of good government. The punishment
due may, indeed, be suspended, provided the ends of good
government be not thereby weakened; that is, provided some
measure or expedient can be introduced, which will answer
the same ends as the punishment of the criminal. Such a
measure we have asserted the atonement of Christ to be--a
measure devised and instituted by God himself. Fourthly. The atonement of Christ is a vindication of the
divine purposes, from the suspicion of having been the
cause, or the occasion, of the perdition of the rejecters of
the gospel. Every one will allow, that the advocates of sovereign
predestination have used very incautious language upon this
subject, partly to exalt the freedom of divine grace, and
partly to impress the unbeliever with the certainty of his
condemnation, and fate. Of this incautious language, the
opponents have made a most abundant use, and, it is to be
observed, that generally the doctrine of predestination is
attacked, chiefly as it has been represented by the most
incautious writers. Many writers have written against the
divine decrees as represented by Toplady, Hawker, Vaughan of
Leicester, etc., but few or none against President Edwards,
Dr. Edward Williams, Andrew Fuller, etc. Indeed, I might say
that, there is scarcely one author who has written against
predestination to life; all the attacks have been directed
against a decree of reprobation, which, as a human and
unscriptural doctrine, has been found more easily
assailable. The divine purposes have been sometimes represented as
the cause of a sinner's perdition. Such representations may
have been made to demonstrate to the sinner, the infallible
certainty of his condemnation, under the impression that
making his destruction to be a subject of inexorable decree,
he would see the impossibility of escaping it. As it is a general impression that an event to be certain
must be decreed, I crave the indulgence of a few lines, even
at the charge of metaphysical prolixity, to show that an
event may be certain without being decreed. The difference
between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, is certain,
without being decreed; for no decree can possibly cause it
to be otherwise. Things are not right merely because God
does them, but He does them because they are right, and
right irrespective of any decree to make them so. The whole
is greater than its part: two straight lines cannot inclose
a space: one and two will not make four: if two mountains
are created, there must be a valley between them. No decree
can cause these things to be otherwise. So, if God produce a
creature, that creature must be inferior to the Creator.
This cannot be the result of a decree, for no decree can
alter it; and none will say, that God can decree to create a
being equal to himself. The dependence of the creature,
then, on the Creator, is an event certain, and yet not
caused by a decree. If such a created dependent being be
separated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, from its
supporter, the result will be ruin. This ruin, whether
physical or moral, cannot be the result of a decree, for no
decree can cause a creature to be independent of its
creator. Let us now apply these clear principles. By sin man falls
voluntarily from his dependence on the Creator, consequently
moral ruin is perfectly certain without being ascribed to
the divine decrees. This moral ruin is another word for all
the miseries of sin. The evils of sin are not contrivances
of God, for they would have been the same had we never heard
of the divine decrees. Let us suppose a case. A man, by lies
and falsehoods, brings himself into trammels and
difficulties exceedingly detrimental and injurious to his
personal interests. He is not to blame divine providence,
and the divine decrees, that such are the natural
consequences of falsehood, for no decree can make them
otherwise. Divine decrees may interfere to prevent the
consequences from taking place, but they never can cause it
that such consequences will not arise from lying. And surely
such a sovereign prevention in any given case, is not the
cause, causa causans, why the natural consequences of lying,
actually take place in other instances. The liar himself is
alone to be blamed. This reasoning is applicable to every
other sin as well as to lying. If there be one doctrine in
the Scripture more clear than another, it is that the
destruction of the well-being of man is entirely of himself,
irrespective of any decree. After all, it is a fact that
both the friends and the opponents of predestination agree,
that nothing worse shall befall any sinner, than JUSTICE. No
human being shall be WRONGED even in perdition. These metaphysical principles are fully borne out by
tangible FACTS, which take place now in the present
administration of moral government. Within our own
observation, there have been persons on whom the wisest and
the best means of improvement have been used in vain. These
persons fully know their duty and their master's will, yet
habitually live in sin. They have been on the bed of
sickness, and nigh unto death; their remorse was
excruciating, they earnestly prayed for respite, and vowed
that on the restoration of health they would lead very
different lives: they have recovered, and they have been
more hardened and reckless in sin than ever. These things
have occurred to them again and again: and now all say that
they seem as if given up of God to the hardness of their own
hearts. This is, alas! a very common case. But when such
language is used concerning such a sinner, is there any
impression that such a giving up is unrighteous? Does any
one think that such a hardened character is the product of
any divine decree? NO: every candid and holy mind may indeed
view such a character as a case for his pity, but more for
blame and reprehension. This case is not solitary. It is the
case of every sinner that has ever perished. It is the case
of every instance of reprobation, a reprobation not the
result of divine decrees, but the natural result of a
character hardened in wrong, "to love darkness rather than
light, because his deeds were evil." As a vindication of this character of the divine
purposes, the atonement is "set forth," for there is no
reprobation in the atonement. The atonement in its design
and in its aspect, in its testimony and in its influence,
has no reprobation in it except for those who voluntarily
reject and reprobate it. It is a propitiation for the sins
of the whole world; it is a testimony of love "to the
world," and consists in a "death for every man." "The blood
that speaketh better things," never speaks reprobation. It
speaks salvation in every syllable. It speaks and pleads for
pardon in every case, and on every application. There are
indeed some cases, which are not pleaded by the blood of
Christ, but there is not a single case reprobated by it. The
cases not pleaded by him are those, which sinners refuse to
entrust him with; the Intercessor himself rejects none.
Every drop of the blood of atonement says, "Reprobation is
not in me." An atonement exhibited to vindicate absolute
reprobation, would convulse the universe. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT EXPLAINED
BY THE CHARACTER OF THE DIVINE
PURPOSES. The advocates of a limited atonement have always appealed
to the divine purposes as the impregnable defenses of
particular salvation. The real state of the question, I deem
to be this--Did the Father decree, and did the Son design,
that the atonement should be a medium of salvation to all
men, or to a select chosen number only? The question is not to be decided by the event, but by
the nature of a "design" in a moral government. Thus were we
to inquire, whether God designed that the moral law
published on Sinai should preserve all the Jews in his
service and worship?--no one would answer and decide the
question by the event, without reflecting unfavorably on the
sincerity of the divine character. We may justly say, that a
thing is designed to produce and to secure any end when it
is fitted and adapted to it, though eventually it may fail
of it. The arrangement with Adam in the garden of Eden was
adapted, and consequently designed, to keep him from
falling, The event indeed was otherwise, but the purpose was
sincere and real. So the atonement of Christ is adapted, and
therefore designed, to save man from sin, though the event
in numerous instances may be otherwise. Some will not come
unto him that they might have life; they will not have him
to rule over them; they neglect their great salvation; they
tread under foot the blood wherewith they were atoned, and
they deny and reject the Lord that bought them. Commercial views of the atonement of Christ engender
sentiments about the divine decrees which are unfavorable to
the character of divine veracity. If the atonement consist
in the literal suffering of the real penalty due to a
certain number of offenders, it is evident that there was no
decree that the identical penalty due to the others should
have been suffered, and consequently that there is no
provision whatever made, and designed, for their salvation.
This commercial atonement gives the sinner no alternative.
The penalty, on this hypothesis, must be suffered before he
can be saved; and if Christ has not suffered it for him, be
must suffer it himself; and if he suffer it himself he will
not survive it, he will be lost--and lost because the
quantum of his punishment was not enumerated in the amount
of penalties allotted for the atonement. Yet,
notwithstanding this, he is condemned and punished for not
availing himself of the sufferings of Christ as the means of
his salvation; whereas, according to the true verity of the
case, these sufferings were never provided or decreed, or
designed to be at all available for him: indeed, it was
never decreed that Christ should profit him. If the divine
purposes run thus, the universal aspect of the atonement is
an imposing semblance; the urgent general call of the gospel
is serious trifling; and the condemnation for unbelief-for
not believing what was really not true,-for rejecting what
he verily was never welcome to,--such a condemnation is an
enormity, for which all the languages of the globe have no
epithet. The friends of a particular and limited atonement argue
that the Father's election, and the Son's redemption, are of
the same extent, or relate to the same individual persons,
to all such, and to none else: so that all the chosen people
are redeemed, and all the redeemed are the chosen to
salvation. They also plead that there is not, in the
Scriptures, the least intimation that Christ's redemption
either exceeds, or falls short of, the Father's election, in
one single instance or individual person. The fallacy of this argument is in the word "redemption."
This word has various meanings. Redemption means, either the
ransom price, or the price of redemption--or it means the
act of paying down that price:--or else, by metonymy, it
means the effect of such a payment, meaning the state
produced by such a ransoming. The effect, in the case of a
sinner is, a state of forgiveness, acceptance with God, and
admission to heaven. In the above argument the effect of
paying the ransom price is confounded with the act of paying
it. In the argument, "redemption" means, not the act of
paying the ransom, but the effect, or the final result of
paying the price. This final result of the atonement will
not derange any of the plans of God, as to his determination
"to exhibit specialty in the application of the atonement to
Believers only. Our question is, was the act of paying the
ransom price by Christ designed to be available to all, so
"that the world through him might be saved," or was it only
designed for a certain chosen number? We say fearlessly,
that the final results of the atonement will only be
realized by those who receive Christ, and believe in him;
but the act of making that atonement, and the offer of the
benefits of that atonement, are designed and purposed, to be
a medium of salvation to all men, without excluding one
individual. If the word "redemption" be taken in the sense
of "actual salvation," then Christ's redemption neither
exceeds, nor falls short of, the Father's election. If
"redemption" be taken in the sense of paying down the ransom
price, or a valuable and honorable consideration, as a
medium for delivering sinners, then Christ's redemption and
the Father's election are not commensurate and of equal
extent, taking "the Father's election" as meaning the will
of God revealed in the final results of the atonement. It is
supposed, even by our Saviour himself, that the result will
not be commensurate with the gracious design of God, and
with the large aspect of the atonement. God loved the world,
and, gave his Son, that THE WORLD through him MIGHT BE SAVED
but it is only whosoever believeth in him, it is he only
that will answer the design, and share in the result of the
atonement. The atonement is a measure of government, not of
private love and friendship, but of a public commonwealth.
In such a public measure, the public will of the Father, as
moral governor, and the public design and intent of Christ,
as mediator, are commensurate. God willeth all men to be
saved, therefore Christ gave himself a ransom for all. From the divine purposes, the advocates of a limited
atonement argue, that since Christ foreknew the results of
the atonement, and since he foreknew who would believe in
him, why should he die and lavish his blood for those who,
he knew, would not believe in him. This arguement is founded on three things, which are
wrong, and inconsistent with moral government. It is
supposed, first that foreknowledge is the rule of Christ's
conduct and actions; secondly, that to save believers was
the chief end of his sufferings; and, thirdly, that
consisted in suffering the identical punishment due to
sinners; for it supposes, that he would not knowingly suffer
the punishment of those, who, be knew, should suffer the
punishment themselves. If the question be repeated, Why did
he suffer for those, whom he knew to be sure to prove
unbelievers? The reply is, he suffered to vindicate the
character of God in offering pardon to them--and he
suffered, to show how inexcusable they would be in their own
destruction, by which the Gospel would be a sweet savor even
in them that perish. But why should this influence of foreknowledge be
confined to the atonement of Christ only? The Lord Jesus
Christ knew that his own would receive him not, yet he came
to them. He knew that the Jews would reject the overtures of
his ministry, yet he said, and he said it with tears of
regret, that he would oft have gathered them. He knew that
many would neglect his great salvation, yet he gave himself
a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. I might
remark, in passing, that he would not have foreknown that
any would disbelieve in him, without foreknowing that they
would have the offer, the warrant, and the opportunity to
believe in him; and also that the only firm ground for such
an offer and warrant was his own death for them. Another argument, borrowed from the character of the
divine decrees, to maintain particular atonement is, that a
general atonement throws an air of uncertainty around the
plans and purposes of God, and of disappointment around the
travails of the soul of Christ. It must be remembered that we are concerned in the divine
decrees, only as they are administered within the circle of
moral-government; and that beyond that line they are "secret
things," unrevealed, and belong to God only. Within this
boundary, it should not be evaded nor blinked, that the
divine plans are susceptible of failures. When God by Isaiah
remonstrates with the Jewish church, and asks, "What could I
have done more," it is implied that all the measures which
had been used had failed of their ends. It is implied in the
sentiments of Jesus Christ himself, when he supposes his
Father to say, "They will reverence my Son," though after
all he was slain and murdered. It is therefore a morbid
squeamishness that makes us afraid to avow what are daily
matters of fact. This failure has taken place in
creation--it was made "very good," but now is groaning and
travailing together in pain. It takes place in providence,
for in it, God has determined the bounds of men's
habitation, that they might seek the Lord, if haply they
might feel after him; but they are all gone astray, every
one in his own way. It takes place in the atonement; Christ
died for all, that they which live should not henceforth
live to themselves, but unto him who died for them--but many
live to themselves, deny the Lord that bought them, and
renounce his reign over them. It is sometimes vauntingly asked: "Where does the
Scripture speak of Christ's death and the ends of it, in
terms of uncertainty; or represent him as coming short of
his aim and intention in dying for sinners?" In Heb. iv. 1,
the apostle warns some who might seem to come short of the
rest remaining for the people of God. God has no rest to
offer to any sinner but through the death of Christ. To fall
short of it is a possible case, and it is evident that no
one can fall short of a thing that was never provided and
intended for him. This rest could not have been provided but
through the death of Christ. It is also a supposable case
that an uncharitable Christian may "destroy him for whom
Christ died," and cause a "weak brother to perish, for whom
Christ died;"--that men may deny the Lord that bought them,
and bring destruction upon themselves, notwithstanding his
death for them. I may here be interrogated, "How do you reconcile the
liableness to failure in the divine measures, with the
certainty that God's counsel shall stand, and that he will
do his pleasure?" I state at once most frankly and distinctly, that I do
not know how to reconcile them. I believe it is not my duty
to show how to reconcile them. It is enough for me that they
are not only reconcilable, but actually reconciled. I,
therefore, have nothing to reconcile. It is a fact, in
experience, that God has reconciled them, and worked them
out in harmony. A chemist is not expected to show how two
virulent poisons, such as chlorine and sodium, could be made
to produce a wholesome article for the use of mankind. To
such a demand, his reply would be, God has done it in common
salt. Philosophers did not require NEWTON to demonstrate how
two antagonist forces, the centripetal and the centrifugal,
could exist in the same body at the same time. He knew that
as a philosopher his work was to demonstrate the fact, not
the mode; for God himself had reconciled these different
forces, and by them, had produced a system of order and
beauty. The theologian ought not to be expected to show how
God's firmness in government, and man's abuse of
free-agency, can be reconciled. All the FACTS of the Bible
prove that God has reconciled them, and that he still works
both principles so harmoniously as to make the opposition
and wrath of man to praise him. Even if such an argument were not valid, a belief in
particular atonement does not at all remove the difficulty.
A limited atonement may seem to tally with the certainty of
the actual and final results of the death of Christ but it
clashes most gratingly against such indisputable verities,
as the universal aspect of the atonement, the sincere
invitations of the gospel, and the sorer punishment of
unbelievers. This difficulty cannot be avoided by escaping
to any other creed. It presses on the Heathen and the
Mohammedan, upon the Jew and the Christian. Philosophers,
metaphysicians, and theologians, have endeavored with
Herculean labors, to push this subject up to light and
distinctness; but after all, like the stone of Sisyphus, it
rolls back to its own awful mystery and dread profundity.
There never was a creed on the face of the earth, and there
exists not a creed, that accounts for the difficulty. Yes,
there is one, but it is a creed so severely simple, so
unsophisticated with metaphysical reasonings, and so
unamalgamating with theological systems, that few deign to
take it up; it is the creed of Jesus Christ, "Even so,
Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight,"--the creed that
"judges nothing before the time,"--the creed that sings, And he will make it plain."